On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 12:35 PM, Robert Ramey
On 1/2/17 12:08 PM, Vladimir Batov wrote:
On 2017-01-03 06:24, Robert Ramey wrote:
On 1/2/17 7:41 AM, Paul A. Bristow wrote: ...
It would lead to better (and less acrimonious) reviews because we are not expecting perfection from day one.
FWIW - I don't think the reviews are all that acrimonious.
I have to site with Paul here as from what I've seen people do tend to expect everything on a plate from the set-go.
Too few people are reviewing 'real-life' usage.
We need more users and that won't happen until we have a two-stage acceptance process.
Well we sort of have a two-stage process now.
Stage I = inclubator Stage II reviewed
The problem with the incubator IMO is that it does not provide any guarantee whatsoever that the library will be accepted/around/maintained in the future.
No one - not even boost - can make such a guarentee.
+1 Can you afford to take the risk of a Boost library (or any other library) to not be maintained and bug-free in the future? Nobody but the user can answer this question, because even if the risk could be evaluated objectively, the risk-tolerance is user-specific. Most definitely this is not a matter the review process should be concerned with. Emil